Only pro israel boomers still believe this shit

>physically impossible for us to have even the film from the moon if we ever even went

Attached: shithead.jpg (326x264, 47.72K)

>film is in cold storage
>film was scanned to 4k and uploaded to flickr for the world
>film was also scanned to 6k for distribution from nasa's own site
>"It’s physically impossible for us to have even the film from the moon if we ever even went."

>impossible for the film to exist
flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive

>no argument
>blind faith because it makes USA look good
Good goy, the USA is a based country and totally not an israel golem. How did the film survive radiation in space both ways through the van allen belts and sitting there for hours being bombarded by unmitigated radiation on the moon? How did the film not shatter in -200 degree cold? How did the massive heat change in the internal mechanics of the camera not render it useless?

From a studio on earth, nice bro.

Also look at the picture in the OP. Literally movie set spotlight. See the hotspots? If this were really taken on the moon there would be no difference in intensity of light anywhere since the sun is massive. Look at a picture on earth with no clouds with a distant backdrop. Literally no difference of light intensity anywhere. Even film experts have no answer to why this famous picture and all of the rest of the apollo pictures look like they are shot under a studio spotlight.

We probably could have gone but after doing research I am 100% convinced that the broadcast and pictures supposedly taken on the moon literally cannot be real. It’s just another situation like the holocaust where they never envisioned the internet existing so they thought they could just strong arm any independent researcher who writes a book or something. I really don’t know if we went but I’m certain that the footage is bullshit. If you comb through the official video you can see parts where the astronauts make impossible movements under any type of gravity whatsoever as if they are being propped up by steel wires. There’s even a few frames where you can see light reflecting off of something feet above the astronaut. It just makes it more spooky how the telemetry data just disappeared and how we gave up further space exploration shortly after to feed african niggers instead.

>How did the film survive radiation in space both ways through the van allen belts and sitting there for hours being bombarded by unmitigated radiation on the moon?
The worst mission in terms of radiation exposure was Apollo 14. They got the equivalent of roughly 3-4 years of background radiation on Earth. If you specifically look for it ISO 160 color film might show slight fogging at that age but nothing you can't correct when printing (1960s) or digitally (today). Fogging doesn't become bad until you exceed a decade.

It amazes me how people assume the Van Allen belts or the lunar surface must be like the fucking Chernobyl elephant's foot. The moon is as far away from the sun as we are. If radiation levels were high enough to destroy film or kill astronauts over the course of an 8-12 day mission there would be no life on Earth. Neither the Van Allen belts nor are atmosphere are THAT good at blocking radiation.

>How did the film not shatter in -200 degree cold?
I don't even know if they would have had to alter the base for this. But I can tell you that it would have absolutely been possible to make a custom film base that would remain flexible at -200F.

>How did the massive heat change in the internal mechanics of the camera not render it useless?
Why would it have? Film chemicals break down with extreme heat + time. Short exposures to heat that's not high enough to literally melt the film base shouldn't destroy the film.

More importantly: you are assuming the high/low temperatures experienced by the film. There's no air on the moon, therefore no convection and very little conduction of heat. That means it takes a great deal of time for an object to either radiate heat away (cool off) or absorb heat even in sunlight. The common Hollywood myth that you would freeze instantly if kicked out of an airlock is absolute bullshit.

>a 1960s studio can withstand the scrutiny of 14,500 6x6 Hasselblad frames shot on Ektachrome
You have no idea what you're talking about.

>We probably could have gone but after doing research I am 100% convinced that the broadcast and pictures supposedly taken on the moon literally cannot be real.
Go to the flickr link above and show me the picture that you think is fake.

They are real pictures shot on earth.

You have taken the poison in the well if you think the moon landing is real.

The film could not survive the solar rays that it would have been bombarded with on the lunar surface.

Attached: 77822684564.jpg (1100x1106, 564.19K)

Also, they never addressed any “special film.” Also, why is the OP picture have lighting as if a small but powerful light source was closeby and not a massive source from millions of miles away? A moon lit by the sun wouldn’t have studio tier light hot spots.

I wonder wh...

Attached: 20200414_170743.jpg (649x649, 106.39K)

Pro-Israel boomer, here. You're right. I do believe that shit.

Again, if the 'solar rays' were that powerful then radiation levels would be so high on Earth that life could not exist here. The belts+atmosphere block some radiation but they're not nearly effective enough to stop radiation that could fry film in a few days.

ok schizo

soviet union were the biggest kike lovers up to their collapse

The moon has no electromagnetic field dumb dumb. That film did not come from the moon, end of story.

>Shielding is not possible
>The sun is not bright and illuminates from one side
You think you're so smart don't you? So adamant in your beliefs. And you don't even have proof. Sounds familiar.

>i just get done saying they probably wouldn't have needed special film
>"Also, they never addressed any “special film.”"
Holy fuck you are dense.

>Also, why is the OP picture have lighting as if a small but powerful light source was closeby and not a massive source from millions of miles away? A moon lit by the sun wouldn’t have studio tier light hot spots.
>t. Never Taken an Outdoor Photo
Ektachrome had about 8 stops of dynamic range or latitude. It's pretty hard not to blow out highlights in full sunlight with that range.

"Moon landing is fake" is just US government disinfo. They don't want people discussing what's actually on the moon :v)
youtube.com/watch?v=KbVErriMqCE&feature=youtu.be
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1585345616638.webm

Attached: 1564772676477.jpg (1200x800, 93.25K)

That op photo is not possible if it was taken on the moon.

>electromagnetic field STRONK!
You are absolutely and completely clueless about all aspects of radiation, aren't you?

I've studied photography for two decades. Please enlighten me as to what's wrong with it.

Im not reading all that shit nigga.

if you actually believe in the moon landings you are an irrational fuck. anyone with a brain capable of critical thinking can tell it was a hoax. Look at all the characteristics of studio lighting in the photos along with what it would take to get men to the moon. Hint the radiation belts are a big problem and the smoking gun to the hoax

You don’t understand what he’s saying because you’re retarded. The film used in the Apollo cameras would not be able to withstand the radiation and extreme temperatures of the trip to the moon and back.

>The film used in the Apollo cameras would not be able to withstand the radiation and extreme temperatures of the trip to the moon and back.
You might want to read my other posts retard.

Hey the radiation can't hurt you if you don't know about it! Or at least that's what NASA says

>ektachrome film can withstand the radiation of space along with the extreme temperatures of the moon
You, sir, are actually the retard.
Have you seen 2001 a space odyssey? Of course Hollywood could’ve done it at the time. Look up front projection